Is the ocean broken?

Seawater flooding bottom lands gives a new meaning to salted peanuts.

 

Funny. I was referring to freshwater flooding. The upper Hillsborough is not salty.

 

My peanuts are somewhat salt tolerant.

"The plant is also tolerant of shearing and salt spray, and performs well in tropical, sub-tropical and warmer temperate regions."

Read more at Gardening Know How: Groundcover Peanut Varieties: Using Peanut Plants As Groundcover https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/edible/vegetables/peanuts/groundcover-peanut-varieties.htm

 

Remember that storm surge is accompanied by precipitation, which dilutes and washes away the salt.

 

What's actually happening in Florida for changing sea levels is not a good measure for AGW. Florida is practically floating. The honeycomb underground aquifers move the land, cause sinkholes that swallow houses, sediment and storm surg shift coastline all the time, not to mention what human teraforming and aquaforming do. You think you own the perfect piece of beach front property with your own private beach, no one renting umbrella or beach cats in front of your private beach, then you wake up one morning to find the town is rebuilding the beach lost to erosion by pumping thousands of tons of sand up onto your beach and now you don't own to the water anymore. Soon, there's a guy selling sunglasses and folding chairs right in front of your house. Sealevel rise? Not in Florida.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

Like.




-Will (Dragonfly)

 

My peanuts are the same genera but a different species from the edible variety.
https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/edible/vegetables/peanuts/growing-peanuts.htm

 

The 'Severe Ramifications' of Climate Change on the Great Barrier Reef Are Clearer Than Ever

Across all ages and almost all locations, coral populations have declined precipitously in the past 20 years. That indicates the reef could be entering a new shrunken and unhealthy state or face collapse altogether.

Large coral has disappeared, particularly in the northern and central parts of the reef. In the middle section of the reef, large corals have all but disappeared at the sites sampled. Overall, large coral species declined by 76% from the mid-1990s.

Small coral are also on the decline, basically vanishing from the north-central portion of the reef, as are middle-aged ones. Locations deeper beneath the surface, which are exposed to less hot water, are in relatively better shape, but the study also documented widespread coral declines on the reef slopes, too.

The new study was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

 

First Evidence That Offshore Wind Farms Are Changing the Oceans

Offshore wind turbines are huge, but most of their mass is in the concrete and steel bases that sit underwater.

A typical wind turbine can support some four metric tons of the shellfish.

Mussel beds are currently concentrated around the coast, but wind farms are offshore. Mussels are a food source for other marine animals, such as fish and crabs, and this has the potential to significantly alter the food web.

They say offshore wind platforms are changing the nature of marine ecosystems in complex, unanticipated, and beneficial ways. They act as marine preservation areas, because fishing and bottom trawling is not allowed for safety reasons. So these areas can support greater biodiversity than unprotected areas.

 

I agree that when those monstrosities crash into the sea, they will form a wonderful matrix for marine growth, including new coral beds.

 

If a scientist has a certain perspective on the science they were doing, and they applied to you for a grant, would you fund a scientist that wasn't already in agreement with you? If you, the underwriter, didn't believe in AGW, would you give money to a scientist who did?

I have no doubt that money drives the direction of scientific inquiry, but it is no surprise that the patron and the scientist agree. I don't think there are many financial supporters of scientific research that shell out money to scientists working on ideas that run counter to the potential funder.

On the other hand, if I were a scientist looking for a job, and research that supports AGW was all that was availible, I'd be designing experiments and writing grant proposals in support of AGW.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

Yep. Follow the money.

 

Finally, a solution to acidification. We just need more concrete to raise the PH.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

Yes, build more harbors, jetties and submarine bases.
How about a bridge to Alcatraz? That might neutralize all the pee running into the Bay from San Francisco.

 

Everybody, including scientists, have their own perspective, their own personal biases, their own ideas of how things work. However, the purpose of science is to figure out how the real world works, and the purpose of the scientific method is to provide guidelines on how research can be conducted to minimise the inherent bias that we all have, and to maximise the discovery of new scientific ideas and "things."

If a scientist consistantly fails to discover new "things" they quickly lose funding.

If a scientist discovers new "things" but consistantly fails to convice his peers that he is properly using scientific method(s) to do so, he loses funding.

I suspect that most pure research (as opposed to applied research) is funded by the government, and climate research is pure research. Research grant monies is distributed by governmental organizations like the National Science Foundation, who job it is to determine which research topics are of national interest, and which research applicants are most apt to do competent work. Generally speaking, there are more applicants than there is money, so (hopefully) only the most important research topics, and the most competent scientists, get funded.

While organizations like the NSF are responsible for the day-to-day work of doling out research monies, it is the President and Congress who decide how much money to spend on scientific research, and who provides general guidance and ovesight on where that money goes.

Control of the Presidency and Congress regularly oscillates between the Democrates and the Republicans. Since Republicans, as a group, tend to be AGW deniers, you can be sure that they are extra critical of any funding that produces research that they are skeptical of.

So it is noteworthy that, in spite of Republican skepticism, scientific results keep rolling in warning of AGW.

Many AGW skeptics have received funding for their research. Good examples are John Christy and Roy Spencer. However, the overwhelming scientific evidence hasn't supported their anti-AGW bias.